Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 10/2018

01-10-2018 | SAGES Technology and Value Assessments Committee Review

Reprocessed single-use devices in laparoscopy: assessment of cost, environmental impact, and patient safety

Authors: David Renton, Peter Denk, Oliver Varban

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 10/2018

Login to get access

Excerpt

United States health care spending rose 4.3% in 2016 to reach $3.2 trillion dollars, or 17.9% of the GDP [1]. It is predicted that, without intervention, this will reach 20% by 2025. In addition, it has been recently calculated that the healthcare industry in the United States accounts for nearly 10% of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions [2]. One of the most important factors contributing to these escalating trends is the fact that many devices used in healthcare are intended for single patient use and are subsequently disposed resulting in significant waste as well as cost. Such devices are as ubiquitous as they are necessary for patient care and range from blood pressure cuffs to laparoscopic trocars to cardiac catheterization balloons. In order to curtail rising trends in cost and waste, the concept of using reprocess single-use devices (RSUD) was introduced in the year 2000. However, given the ethical implications of reusing medical devices on multiple patients, it is important that certain safeguards are in place to ensure that RSUDs do not result in transmission of disease or malfunction in the clinical setting. The following is a review of RSUDs along with an assessment of their impact on cost, the environment and patient safety in laparoscopy. …
Literature
6.
go back to reference Kaplan S, Sadler B, Little K, Franz C, Orris P (2012) Can sustainable hospitals help bend the health care cost curve. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) 29:1–14 Kaplan S, Sadler B, Little K, Franz C, Orris P (2012) Can sustainable hospitals help bend the health care cost curve. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) 29:1–14
7.
go back to reference GAO (2008) Reprocessed single use medical devices. Report to the committee on oversight and government reform, United States Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C. GAO (2008) Reprocessed single use medical devices. Report to the committee on oversight and government reform, United States Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.
8.
go back to reference Gärtner D, Münz K, Hückelheim E, Hesse U (2008) Ultrasound scissors: new single-use instruments vs. resterilised single-use instruments—a prospective randomised study. GMS Krankenhhyg Interdiszip 3:Doc20PubMedPubMedCentral Gärtner D, Münz K, Hückelheim E, Hesse U (2008) Ultrasound scissors: new single-use instruments vs. resterilised single-use instruments—a prospective randomised study. GMS Krankenhhyg Interdiszip 3:Doc20PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Mues AC, Haramis G, Casazza C, Okhunov Z, Badani KK, Landman J (2010) Prospective randomized single-blinded in vitro and ex vivo evaluation of new and reprocessed laparoscopic trocars. J Am Coll Surg 211:738–743CrossRef Mues AC, Haramis G, Casazza C, Okhunov Z, Badani KK, Landman J (2010) Prospective randomized single-blinded in vitro and ex vivo evaluation of new and reprocessed laparoscopic trocars. J Am Coll Surg 211:738–743CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Weld KJ, Dryer S, Hruby G, Ames CD, Venkatesh R, Matthews BD, Landman J (2006) Comparison of mechanical and in vivo performance of new and reprocessed harmonic scalpels. Urology 67:898–903CrossRef Weld KJ, Dryer S, Hruby G, Ames CD, Venkatesh R, Matthews BD, Landman J (2006) Comparison of mechanical and in vivo performance of new and reprocessed harmonic scalpels. Urology 67:898–903CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Yung E, Gagner M, Pomp A, Dakin G, Milone L, Strain G (2010) Cost comparison of reusable and single-use ultrasonic shears for laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Obes Surg 20:512–518CrossRef Yung E, Gagner M, Pomp A, Dakin G, Milone L, Strain G (2010) Cost comparison of reusable and single-use ultrasonic shears for laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Obes Surg 20:512–518CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Arregui ME (2000) Is it possible to resterilize disposable laparoscopy trocars in a hospital setting? Editorial point and counterpoint. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 10:62–64 Arregui ME (2000) Is it possible to resterilize disposable laparoscopy trocars in a hospital setting? Editorial point and counterpoint. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 10:62–64
14.
go back to reference Chan AC, Ip M, Koehler A, Crisp B, Tam JS, Chung SC (2000) Is it safe to reuse disposable laparoscopic trocars? An in vitro testing. Surg Endosc 14:1042–1044CrossRef Chan AC, Ip M, Koehler A, Crisp B, Tam JS, Chung SC (2000) Is it safe to reuse disposable laparoscopic trocars? An in vitro testing. Surg Endosc 14:1042–1044CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Ulualp KM, Hamzaoglu I, Ulgen SK, Sahin DA, Saribas S, Ozturk R, Cebeci H (2000) Is it possible to resterilize disposable laparoscopy trocars in a hospital setting. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 10:59–62 (Discussion 62)CrossRef Ulualp KM, Hamzaoglu I, Ulgen SK, Sahin DA, Saribas S, Ozturk R, Cebeci H (2000) Is it possible to resterilize disposable laparoscopy trocars in a hospital setting. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 10:59–62 (Discussion 62)CrossRef
16.
go back to reference dos Santos VS, Zilberstein B, Possari JF, dos Santos MA, Quintanilha AG, Ribeiro U (2008) Single-use trocar: is it possible to reprocess it after the first use. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 18:464–468CrossRef dos Santos VS, Zilberstein B, Possari JF, dos Santos MA, Quintanilha AG, Ribeiro U (2008) Single-use trocar: is it possible to reprocess it after the first use. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 18:464–468CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Cassera MA, Goers TA, Spaun GO, Swanström LL (2011) Efficacy of using a novel endoscopic lens cleaning device: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Innov 18:150–155CrossRef Cassera MA, Goers TA, Spaun GO, Swanström LL (2011) Efficacy of using a novel endoscopic lens cleaning device: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Innov 18:150–155CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Kelty CJ, Super PA, Stoddard CJ (2000) The driving force in trocar insertion: a comparison between disposable and reusable trocars. Surg Endosc 14:1045–1046CrossRef Kelty CJ, Super PA, Stoddard CJ (2000) The driving force in trocar insertion: a comparison between disposable and reusable trocars. Surg Endosc 14:1045–1046CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Colak T, Ersoz G, Akca T, Kanik A, Aydin S (2004) Efficacy and safety of reuse of disposable laparoscopic instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 18:727–731CrossRef Colak T, Ersoz G, Akca T, Kanik A, Aydin S (2004) Efficacy and safety of reuse of disposable laparoscopic instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 18:727–731CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Montero PN, Robinson TN, Weaver JS, Stiegmann GV (2010) Insulation failure in laparoscopic instruments. Surg Endosc 24:462–465CrossRef Montero PN, Robinson TN, Weaver JS, Stiegmann GV (2010) Insulation failure in laparoscopic instruments. Surg Endosc 24:462–465CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Espada M, Munoz R, Noble BN, Magrina JF (2011) Insulation failure in robotic and laparoscopic instrumentation: a prospective evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205:121, e1–e5CrossRef Espada M, Munoz R, Noble BN, Magrina JF (2011) Insulation failure in robotic and laparoscopic instrumentation: a prospective evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205:121, e1–e5CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Tixier F, Garçon M, Rochefort F, Corvaisier S (2016) Insulation failure in electrosurgery instrumentation: a prospective evaluation. Surg Endosc 30:4995–5001CrossRef Tixier F, Garçon M, Rochefort F, Corvaisier S (2016) Insulation failure in electrosurgery instrumentation: a prospective evaluation. Surg Endosc 30:4995–5001CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Fuchshuber P, Schwaitzberg S, Jones D, Jones SB, Feldman L, Munro M, Robinson T, Purcell-Jackson G, Mikami D, Madani A, Brunt M, Dunkin B, Gugliemi C, Groah L, Lim R, Mischna J, Voyles CR (2017) The SAGES fundamental use of surgical energy program (FUSE): history, development, and purpose. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5933-y CrossRefPubMed Fuchshuber P, Schwaitzberg S, Jones D, Jones SB, Feldman L, Munro M, Robinson T, Purcell-Jackson G, Mikami D, Madani A, Brunt M, Dunkin B, Gugliemi C, Groah L, Lim R, Mischna J, Voyles CR (2017) The SAGES fundamental use of surgical energy program (FUSE): history, development, and purpose. Surg Endosc. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00464-017-5933-y CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Lester BR, Miller K, Boers A, Harris DC, Gamble WG (2010) Comparison of in vivo clinical performance and shaft temperature and in vitro tissue temperature and transection times between new and reprocessed harmonic scalpels. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 20:e150–e159CrossRef Lester BR, Miller K, Boers A, Harris DC, Gamble WG (2010) Comparison of in vivo clinical performance and shaft temperature and in vitro tissue temperature and transection times between new and reprocessed harmonic scalpels. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 20:e150–e159CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Reprocessed single-use devices in laparoscopy: assessment of cost, environmental impact, and patient safety
Authors
David Renton
Peter Denk
Oliver Varban
Publication date
01-10-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 10/2018
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6275-0

Other articles of this Issue 10/2018

Surgical Endoscopy 10/2018 Go to the issue